How the Asians Became White (1998) | Hacker News Reader

How the Asians Became White (1998)

law.ucla.edu

24 pointsbarry-cotter22 comments

Asians, who are quite successful without the benefit of affirmative action/handouts/NAACP-style pressure groups/etc, are an inconvenient fact for race hustlers. Simple as that. The media consequently doesn't like to mention them in discussions of "racism".

No actual humans confuse Asians with whites.

No, I dont think it's that simple.

Generally speaking, successful Asian Americans who emigrated from Asia were already relatively wealthy and educated in their mother countries. Who else could afford to travel to the other side of the globe?

It's not really fair to compare Asians to minorities who were previously in the US because the Asians we see here were the cream of the crop. The poor, unhealthy, uneducated never made it here.

Unless they're Russian, I guess.

Kaiser Wilhelm II spent a fair chunk of his life chewing on that particular nut, if I remember correctly. It ended rather unfortunately, though.

i think it's clear that race, as referred to in socioeconomic contexts, is more of a class indicator than a marker of ethnicity.

white == rich, educated, privileged. asian == (newly) rich, educated, privileged

hence asian == white

Very true. I think another point that was missed / omitted by the author is that Asians want to assimilate, while Blacks have history of celebrating their separate identity. Asians start with a love for capitalism and hard work and all the Ayn Rand-ish stuff (referred to in a positive sense here).

Minority, hence, refers to those who choose to/really are, quite different from the majority.

(BTW, Kal Penn, whether he realizes it or not, is to brownies what Obama is to Black people, and has a natural career in politics; it's there for him to take.)

This was actually never clear to me. It's the first time I've heard it expressed that way.

I had always thought it was because Asian Americans have had a tough time having a voice as a unified minority group, and hence, there was no cultural identity clearly different (when taken as a group) from mainstream America when it came to product consumption. And hence, that's why Asians get lumped into the White category in demographics.

Yeah it's a bit tricky. A few points to chew on.

Race is a social construct. So it might have started as a ethnic marker, but it's constantly evolving. As it stands now, some say that your class actually defines your race.

For example, let's look at your point: Asian Americans have had a tough time...when it came to product consumption

I would ask, what do Asian Americans buy? Besides specific ethnic foods, the majority of the product consumption (clothes, music, jewelry, cars, houses, technology) are what general well-to-do Americans would buy.

And, ethnically speaking, we all know who wears American Eagle and Banana Republic.

Race is a social construct.

No it isn't. The different races are well defined statistical clusters. If you do a cluster analysis of human genotypes or phenotypes (but give it no racial information), the computer will figure out races for you.

And you'll discover the computer agrees with human observers most of the time.

The scientific categorizations of race may be based on genetics, but the racial categories used in the US is definitely socially constructed. We decided to use geography for some groups (ie, Asians, Pacific Islanders), culture/linguistics for another (ie, Hispanic/Latino), and colors (ie, Blacks, Whites).

Citation needed.

I was under the impression that Africans had more genetic variety between them than they do when compared with the rest of the world.

I'm also intrigued as to what this computer would make of Australian aborigines which apparently are genetically on the far side of Africans from Asians despite both being "black".

Asian Americans aren't a unified minority group. They're children of immigrants from Asia, which could include Bengalis from India, Uighurs from China, Hans from Malaysia, etc.

Oprah Winfrey is rich, educated, and privileged, but she's not white.

Aside from that, Asians have relatively light skin. I think the psychological factors that go along with having dark or light skin are at least as important in this equation.

Seriously? They cite Indians as well (ie those from India) and they definitely don't have light skin - nor do many ethnic Chinese for that matter - depending where in China you're from). Being ethnically Chinese, it is somewhat insulting to be arbitrarily grouped in with being "White" in order to make some twisted social policy argument.

Why don't people say they want more Blacks and Hispanics in universities (presumably those are the targeted underrepresented groups). Or does not classifying Asians as essentially "White" mean that this undermines the whole thesis for affirmative action to correct racial prejudice?

It's been repeatedly shown that lighter skin is equated with higher status, even within Asian and Indian communities.

Skin color hierarchies have appeared just as prominently in other races and ethnicities. In Japan, members of the upper class have lighter skin tones than do members of the middle or lower classes; the author of this study concludes that “social selection for light skin color has had some genetic effect” in a nation that was genetically isolated for almost 1500 years (Hulse 1967, quotation in abstract). According to an ancient Japanese proverb, “white skin makes up for seven defects” (quoted in Wagatsuma 1968: 129). In India, “this preference for light-skinned spouses can be easily verified by the matrimonial columns of some of the Hindu dailies. Among the most desirable traits a bride can have are virginity and light skin, as evidenced by those placing ads.” (Hall 1995: 179).

- Hochschild, J. L., Weaver, V. and Burch, T, 2004. "Effects of Skin Color Bias in SES on Political Attitudes and Activities"

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/...

Basically, if you don't think skin color plays a significant role in what people consider a minority, you're just ignoring the evidence.

This doesn't explain how you could confuse the darker skin of an Indian (who is actually from India) with that of an actual (sounds odd when I say that) White person. I am also darker than most white people and I am ethnically Chinese. If that's what you're saying, then Indians should have lower status than Chinese people/hispanics/even some Blacks.

Unless you are saying that it's ok to generalize all Chinese people and Indians as an "average" (which frankly, I think is insulting to everyone). The article isn't talking about prejudice within races, it is talking about classifications between races and why it is odd to consider Asians (Indian and Chinese - not just the lighter ones) as "White".

"White" has always been shorthand for "that set of ethnic groups that has almost the same level of privilege as the WASPs". The Irish, the Italians, and the Jews weren't always "white", either.

The OP doesn't really say how it happened. But overall, I'd agree with the OP that in lumping asians with whites is a mixed bag. To be sure, there are certain aspects of my experience growing up and walking around as an adult that's affected by my cultural heritage. Punishment was never "being sent to my room". Getting "A"s in school was a must. I didn't know what March Madness was until I was in college. Personally, to be lumped into a demographic I don't completely identify with is, to say the least, a little weird.

Asians are a mixed bag on this topic too. Some are strongly opposed to being lumped this way and have a strong ties to their cultural backgrounds while being quite mainstream. And others have rejected it feverishly since childhood to fit in while growing up.

WTF? L.A. Times, April 9, 1998? Why am I supposed to take time out of September 14, 2009 to read this?

The first couple of paragraphs are real stretches. The rest are vague anecdotes.

I don't know if he's got a point, particularly as I'm not in the US, but if that's the best he can come up with then I'll assume not until I see something more convincing.

This seems to be the standard with academia. The US News & World Report's "Best High Schools" and "Best Colleges" lists minority percentages as part of their rankings.

They define Minority as "Black and Hispanic".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com